Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The problem is that science has shown that the universe DOES have a cause.Christians say that this is a reasonable statement which explains existence:
The universe exists because it was created by a God who exists for no reason and with no cause.
But that this is not a reasonable statement and it explains nothing:
The universe exists for no reason and with no cause.
How is "<" and ">" defined?
I can follow what you say above, but I can't follow how that ties in to your original quote:
"The problem with using imaginary numbers to denote a system of time is that the ordering relation is lost. i<-i is false, as is i≥-i."
Without knowing the details of imaginary numbers, I would guess that -i < i.
Also, intuitively it seems to me that addition rather than multiplication would be more directly connected to ordering.
It's all interesting, but I suppose I'm not going to understand it no matter how much effort is expended explaining LOL
And your explanations for the existence of the universe would be:Not if you don’t need to account for God.
Here is a thought: For the physicist math is a source of inspiration for a hypothesis that is tested experimentally, and also a language for describing physical idea, and so forth. The ideas of physics are usually expressed as equations that apply to a sweeping range of scenarios even though the experimental tests are merely a finite number of dots on a curve that is being claimed.While some physicists do get more towards the more formalistic math stuff, many instead use math more like a box of greasy tools, and it's more like, "hand me that little wrench with the red handle. Yeah... Ok, now the blue long needle nose pliers..." and so on, more....promiscuous might be a right metaphor. Not quite a string of one night stands exactly. Maybe more like...just loose standards, will hop into bed quick, and only stay as long as it's paying off.... So, it's a set of tools, and they grab and use as useful. And dump the greasy tool (math stuff) back in the box as soon as it's usefulness seems to be done for the moment.
Not that the math tools are unimportant. They are loved. And greasy.
Ok, maybe the metaphor is a little too far, but you might get the idea. Most don't really care much about whether a mathematician would have done it more formally or such.
The same as your explanations for the existence of God. If you’re going to have an exception to the “all things have a cause” principle, there’s no reason it can’t be the universe.And your explanations for the existence of the universe would be:
except for the fact that the universe is known to have a beginning and God does not.The same as your explanations for the existence of God. If you’re going to have an exception to the “all things have a cause” principle, there’s no reason it can’t be the universe.
Thanks, that makes sense. (I don't understand the definition of ordering using nested sets, but we won't go there LOL).Suppose that's true. We will derive a contradiction.
-i<i
+i +i
0<2i
÷2 ÷2
0<i
×i ×i
0<i²
0<-1
If we’re making up exceptions the fact that the universe has a “beginning” doesn’t matter.except for the fact that the universe is known to have a beginning and God does not.
Christians say that this is a reasonable statement which explains existence:
The universe exists because it was created by a God who exists for no reason and with no cause.
But that this is not a reasonable statement and it explains nothing:
The universe exists for no reason and with no cause.
This Physicist’s Ideas of Time Will Blow Your MindTime feels real to people. But it doesn’t even exist, according to quantum physics. “There is no time variable in the fundamental equations that describe the world,” theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli tells Quartz.
...
From our perspective, the perspective of creatures who make up a small part of the world—we see that world flowing in time,” the physicist writes. At the quantum level, however, durations are so short that they can’t be divided and there is no such thing as time.
In fact, Rovelli explains, there are actually no things at all. Instead, the universe is made up of countless events. Even what might seem like a thing—a stone, say—is really an event taking place at a rate we can’t register. The stone is in a continual state of transformation, and on a long enough timeline, even it is fleeting, destined to take on some other form.
In the “elementary grammar of the world, there is neither space nor time—only processes that transform physical quantities from one to another, from which it is possible to calculate possibilities and relations,” the scientist writes.
...
The world seems ordered, going from past to present, linking cause and effect, because of our perspective. We superimpose order upon it, fixing events into a particular, linear series. We link events to outcomes, and this give us a sense of time.
But the universe is much more complex and chaotic than we can allow for, according to Rovelli.
...
“Time is the form in which we beings whose brains are made up essentially of memory and foresight interact with our world: it is the source of our identity,” he writes.
Thanks, that makes sense. (I don't understand the definition of ordering using nested sets, but we won't go there LOL).
Here is a follow-up question though: I can see that applying "<" and ">" to imaginary numbers is maybe nonsense or at least very weird, but I remember two dimensional graphs with a vertical imaginary axis and a horizontal real axis. It seems to me that a graph assumes an ordering is sensible, but you showed that it isn't sensible. Maybe the two dimensional graphs for complex numbers are an imperfect and sometimes misleading way of illustrating certain things?
Not all Christians say this. Some just say, "I think I exist, and through my biology, I perceive that I am situated within what has been conceived by other human beings as a Cosmos or Universe, and I find the whole of existence within this complex to be a Grand Enigma ... "
Which specific part of the OP would you or some hypothetical Christian disagree with?
I suppose the reasoning for the two dimensional representation for complex numbers might be that we are actually depicting a pair of real numbers (x,y) rather than a complex number but that there is a reversible mapping between (x,y) and (x,iy)? So the ordering is being applied only to the real number y rather than iy?C=R×R by definition, so it is correct to depict it as two axes. Establishing the vertical axis as imaginary and the horizontal axis as real is an arbitrary choice, most likely chosen that way because we think of the real numbers as independent of imaginary numbers and imaginary numbers being dependent on real numbers (just like the y=f(x) variable is dependent on the x variable). Another arbitrary choice is to set (a,b), a member of R×R, equal to a+bi.
You could define some kind of ordering on imaginary numbers but I don't know how useful it would be. I don't believe there's a way to do it that would also be consistent with the ordering on the real numbers, so effectively you'd just be redefining "<". I know it seems like you can order them sensibly since they are arranged in a plane, but the properties of i cause problems. Hence my speculation a while ago.
... just the part about what is or is not "reasonable" for a Christian to believe. Frankly, I don't think the term should be seen an exacting synonym with "being utterly logical," especially not in some deductive way that is solely conducive to a Foundationalist endeavor that expect the Christian faith to conform to.
I suppose the reasoning for the two dimensional representation for complex numbers
might be that we are actually depicting a pair of real numbers (x,y) rather than a complex number
but that there is a reversible mapping between (x,y) and (x,iy)?
So the ordering is being applied only to the real number y rather than iy?
How do you function without having some sense of what is or isn't reasonable?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?